Login or register for free to remove ads.
You are here:

Are Pretty Interfaces Worth the Time? The Effects of User Interface Types on Web-Based Instruction Article

, Texas Tech University, United States ; , The University of Memphis, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of three different interface types on Web-based instruction: a text-based interface, a graphical interface and a metaphorical interface. In order to determine differences among three interface groups, we compared learning performance, cognitive load, usability, and appeal with various data from 41 undergraduate students in the mid-South. Results indicated there was no difference among the groups in terms of learning performance, cognitive load, and usability; however, a metaphorical interface increased learners' attention. Based on the results, implications for instructional designers are presented.


Cheon, J. & Grant, M.M. (2009). Are Pretty Interfaces Worth the Time? The Effects of User Interface Types on Web-Based Instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 5-33. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).



  1. ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group. (2004). Curricula for human-computer interaction. Retrieved November, 24, 2006 from http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html
  2. Anderson, R. A. (2006). Exploring the art and technology of web design. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
  3. Beriswill, J. E. (1998). Analysis-based message design: Rethinking screen design guidelines. Proceedings of the 20th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 29-37.
  4. Cates, W. M. (1996). Towards a taxonomy of metaphorical graphical user interfaces: Demands and implementations. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 18th National Communications and Technology, 101-110.
  5. Chalmers, P. A. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 593-607.
  6. Chang, D., Dooley, L., & Tuovinen, J. E. (2001, July). Gestalt theory in visual screen design – A new look at an old subject. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Computers in Education, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV8Chang.pdf
  7. Chang, D., & Tuovinen, J. E. (2004). The meeting of Gestalt and cognitive load theories in instructional screen design. Proceedings of ICEIS 2004 at the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, 5, 53-58.
  8. Ciavarelli, A. (2003). Assessing the quality of online instruction: Integrating instructional quality and web usability assessments. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480084)
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  10. Clark, R. C, Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2005). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  11. Goldfarb, I., & Kondratova, I. (2004, August). Visual for educational
  12. Grabinger, R. (1989). The effect of CRT screen design on learning and time. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(4), 51-66.
  13. Haag, B. B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration of principles. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, 92-97. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_ Storage_01/ 0000000b/80/26/9e/f4.pdf
  14. Hallahan, K. (2001). Improving public relations web sites through usability research. Public Relation Review, 27, 223-239.
  15. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 155-165.
  16. Hron, A. (1998). Metaphors as didactic means for multimedia learning environments. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(1), 21-28.
  17. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. ETR&D, 53(3), 83-93.
  18. Khentout, C., Harous, S., Douidi, L., & Djoudi, M. (2006). Learning and navigation assistance in a hypermedia. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(3), 265-276.
  19. Lang, J. (2003, July). Role of metaphor in multimedia curriculum design for preservice teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Educat ion Assoc iat ion, Me lbourne, Austra l ia. Retr ieved Ju ly 13, 2006 from
  20. Lee, S. H. (1999). Usability testing for developing effective interactive multimedia software: Concepts, dimensions, and procedures. Educational Technology & Society, 2(2), 1-13.
  21. Lee, S., & Boling, E. (1999). Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: A survey and framework for designers. Educational Technology, 39, 19-26. Lohr, L. L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in Visual Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  22. Lyons, C. J. (2001). Essential design for web professionals. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
  23. Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2002). More than just a pretty (inter) face: The role of the graphical user interface in engaging elearners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 191-205.
  24. Moreno, R. (2001). Cognitive and motivational consequences of adapting an agent metaphor in multimedia learning: Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Proceedings of WebNet 2001 at the world conference on the WWW and Internet. Retrieved November, 20, 2006 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/27/97/17.pdf Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. ETR&D, 53(3), 35-45.
  25. Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40(2), 311-323.
  26. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
  27. Norman, D. (1998). The design of everyday things. New York, NY. Doubleday.
  28. Ohl, T. M., & Cates, W. M. (1997). Applying metaphorical interface design principles to the World Wide Web. Educational Technology, 37(6), 25-38.
  29. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. ETR&D, 53(3), 25-34.
  30. Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743. Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2005, July). Does aesthetics affect the users’ perceptions of VLEs? Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://www.informatics.sussex .ac.uk/users/gr20/aied05/finalVersion/RParizotto.pdf
  31. Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., Hammond, N., Mansano, J., & Cziulik, C. (2004). Aesthetics and perceived usability of VLEs: preliminary results. Proceedings of HCI 2004, 217-221.
  32. Parush, A., Shwarts, Y, Shtub, A., & Chandra, M.J. (2005). The impact of visual layout factors on performance in Web pages: A cross-language study. Human Factors, 47(1), 141-157.
  33. Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook: The second edition. Boston, MA: Charles River Media.
  34. Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software approach. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40-53.
  35. Rieber, L.P. (1994). Computers, graphics, & Learning. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32, 153-172.
  36. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  37. Sing, C. C., & Der-thanq, V. (2004). A review on usability evaluation methods for instructional multimedia: An analytical framework. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3). 229-238.
  38. Stoney, J., & Wild, M. (1998). Motivation and interface design: Maximizing learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 40-50.
  39. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
  40. Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved November 19, 2006 from http://www.sloan-C.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
  41. Sweller, J., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
  42. Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity and focus on recall learning, study time and completion rates. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 23-42.
  43. Tollett, J., Williams, R., & Rohr, D. (2002). Robin Williams web design workshop. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  44. Tuovinen, J. E., & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 31, 133-152.
  45. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. ETR&D, 53(3), 5-13.
  46. Van Veenendaal, E. (1998, November). Questionnaire based usability testing. Proceedings of European Software Quality Week, Brussels. Vogt, C.
  47. Williams, R., & Tollett, J. (2006). The non-designer's web book: An easy guide to creating, designing, and posting your own web site (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  48. Zhu, E. (1999). Hypermedia interface design: The effects of number of links and granularity of nodes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(3), 331-358.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.